In a world where only Andrew Ference is willing to look beyond sweater colors and logos to tell it like it is (and then take unwarranted criticism for it), Vancouver head coach Alain Vigneault carried on the most prominent tradition in the NHL — hypocrisy — today.

When asked about the Bruins upping their physical play and slowing down some of Vancouver’s better players in Saturday night’s Game 2 of the Stanley Cup Final, Vigneault today went out of his way to comment on Bruins forward Rich Peverley’s slash on defenseman Kevin Bieksa.

“Kevin didn’t get hit by Peverley, he got a cheap shot in the back of the knee, so that’s totally different,” said the coach. “He went down because of something that obviously you don’t want to see in the game.”

Bieksa was hobbled but didn’t miss a shift. The officials missed the slash, so there was no call. Vancouver general manager Mike Gillis today said he had not heard from the league about the play.

I think we’ll all agree that Peverley’s slash was a cheap shot. If Bieksa had been seriously injured, Peverley would’ve been suspended. You could argue he should still be suspended, even though we know the league doesn’t operate that way.

Nonetheless, Vigneault decides to publicly declare it a cheap shot just days after his own player Alexandre Burrows takes a bite out of Patrice Bergeron’s finger. And a day after Maxim Lapierre decides this is the proper way to act in a scrum on the ice when near Bergeron:

Vigneault ducked every question about the bite and the subsequent league decision to not suspend Burrows last week. He wasn’t asked about Lapierre, but you know he would never acknowledge that his would-be agitator might want to consider better tact.

Vigneault might want to concern himself more with his own players’ embarrassing actions and leave the policing of the Bruins to their organization.

@ George tit for tat is it? Get the Bruins to play pre-1972 while you’re at it…

@mg Care to have your grammar corrected by a Frenchy? “you’re”, not “your”.
You should refrain from making remarks about one’s linguistic background when you don’t even have a handle on your first language.

If that was the only away from the play 2 hander handed out during that game, I’ll be everyone on this site a jet-ski. Difference is when it happened to Bieksa, I literally thought his season might be over the way he acted, turns out his leg was actually still attached despite his best efforts to convince everyone otherwise.

KB16- Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper
(2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, PROVIDED the attacking player has made a REASONABLE EFFORT to avoid such contact.

61.2 Penalty – In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is INSIDE OR OUTSIDE the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player WILL receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate).

I, for one, enjoyed the slash and welcome Peverley to do it again next time in retaliation for Bieksa cross-checking him in the corner. Plus, the guy dove. He felt the slash, went down like he was doing his best Sedin impression, and didn’t miss a shift. That’s textbook bull….

Bernard Gilbert has a point. It’s not only cheap, it’s cowardly. Bieksa was slashed in the back of the knees behind the play. I mean, go nuts, try defending that but spare the but so-and-so did this and that first. It’s childish and stupid. Just look at the play in question. Did he slash the back of his legs when wasn’t looking? Thanks.

@George, if Vancouver continues to play like the Canadiens, maybe they’ll have 24 banners up in their rafters…many at the expense of the Bruins.

@mg Do you even know where Vancouver is on the map? There’s probably as many French people in new-england than there is in British Columbia? 20 years without a stanley cup? Sure, but Canadians win the cup every year for their American teams…

The real thing that’s irritating is that we should all agree that a 2 handed slash to the back of the legs is a cheap shot. It doesn’t matter if Lapierre mocked Bergeron or if Burrows bit a finger. It doesn’t change the incident.

I honestly can say I don’t blame the guy for defending his players-even if he reams them out behind closed doors.

I thought his comments about Thomas were attempts at head games and to influence how the officials called the games with regard to interference.

As for the slash-slashes go uncalled all the time-even two handers. He also conveniently forgot about the crosscheck by Bieksa just before the slash. It was a tit for tat play, and honestly I don’t blame Peverly. he doesn’t have to stand there and take cheap shots. My guess is the calls weren’t called because the refs either didn’t see them or figured it was tit for tat and moved on.

Bieksa goes down like he was shot and doesn’t miss a shift?Sounds like Lapierre has been coaching him well. What a shame the Canucks have resorted to playing like the Canadiens. I’m sure if Bergeron bit Burrows all Vancouver fans would have no problem with it

I think the difference is that while Burrows’ biting, and Lapierre’s baiting are childish, embarrassing, and don’t belong on the world stage, Peverly’s slash is more of an actual safety issue. and needs to be called out for that reason. I think any coach would (and should) feel pretty protective of his top-pair D when it comes to this sort of intentional slashing.

This doesn’t bother me too much because Claude basically said the same thing after the biting incident. Vigneault proved to be wanker from the start when he was whining about Thomas leaving the crease. You can’t bump or trip a goalie whether he is behind, to the side, or in front of the net. It’s not a new rule Alain.

So let me ask you this, if one of the Sedin twins or Kesler were in the same position as Patrice Bergeron. If they came out and said “He bit me”, would you believe it? A player has no reason to make up that he got his finger bit nor, would they fake an injury for a penalty. Slash to the bone? Much you like stated about the well padded gloves. Dee man these days wear pretty big and bulky shin pads. So while the slash may have been dirty, they happen all the time during the course of the game. When’s the last time someone got bit playing hockey?

Instead of focussing only on the “bite”, which is history, why not look in your own backyard and ask yourself why Ferrance was on for BOTH goals? And couldn’t that BIG Chara do ANYTHING about Burrows flying in to score 11 seconds in???

What “BITE”!? Even if it were true, biting a well-padded glove is far different than a TWO-handed slash on bone. WHAT do you call that? Anyone who saw it KNEW it was a cheap shot. As for LaPierre, yapping doesn’t hurt like a slash does! Unless the Boston boys are SUCH wimps it WILL hurt them?!

Burrows would not have had to bite Bergeron if he didn’t fish hook Burrows by shoving his hand in his mouth…seriously, if they had suspended Burrows they would have also had to suspend Bergeron for his actions which led to the bite…that is why nothing happened…and what would you do if someone shoved there fingers in your mouth…kiss them??? Bergeron needs to stop whining about a nip on a well padded gloved hand!